Agenda 21 is a document that came out of a UN conference on global sustainability. The document was made public on the 13 th of June in 1992 and it was immediately attacked by rabid conspiracy theorists who claimed it was an authoritarian plan to institute a ‘New World Order.’ The UN was demonized as an arm of the Illuminati, world ‘oligarchs’ who practiced child trafficking and the sacrifice of babies. Really dark stuff. They spoke of the UN by its “true” name, as the ‘Luciferian Church of the UN.’
Those of us who think we are a bit more sane just saw in the document a plan for ways we could accommodate 9 billion people on a small planet without environmental disaster. Oblivious us!
But, in the time of the novel coronavirus, it is interesting to think about the recommendation made in Agenda 21 in favor of greater population density centers, cities, as opposed to far-flung suburbs and ever-more-distant subdivisions. Of course, Agenda 21 was addressing infrastructure and land use, not pandemics. Everyone, no matter how distant from the city center, wanted public sewers and water supplies. Many Americans still rely on wells and septic tanks, but people want what they want, and there was lots of pressure to get better amenities. Some local areas did pay heed to Agenda 21 in small ways. They told builders that they could not expect the infrastructure to follow them if they kept moving further from the city center. They told builders to start filling in the empty lots and fallow spaces.
We have seen more apartment buildings, upscale of course, but still not single family homes, being built in what were fields, but close to shopping. There is a whole little world back behind those big box stores, at least that is true in my small corner of the world.
But if we are to leave the hinterlands to farmers and hunker down in tighter, more populated spaces we now have to consider that plan in relation to pandemics. We know that what we are going through right now with the corona virus will not be the only pandemic coming down the pike (and we know this well because there has been one new germ popping up after another – Zika, Ebola, H1N1, mers virus, sars virus).
The necessity of stopping disease transmission argues against the density that Agenda 21 argues for. Those who like to plan for a sustainable future need to go back to the drawing board and figure out how we can deal with both the environmental concerns and the health concerns of having a small planet trying to house a mega-population. These diseases may be trying to establish a balance between resources and those who consume them. Who will win; virus and bacteria, or the human race? Unless we get a plan, a good pandemic plan, really soon the tiny aliens may win from the spaces within us, rather than arriving from distant planets. Can our think tanks give these two opposing human problems some productive thought, given our six feet of separation. It’s entirely possible that time to think could produce great things.
Photo Credit: From a Google Image Search – active sustainability.com
The Dems want to bail out citizens who can’t work during this pandemic because their employers have had to close down. They can’t pay mortgages or rent, utilities, college loans, buy groceries and medicines. The way things are set up, if you can’t pay you can’t stay, and you end up in bankruptcy. Small businesses face the same problems on a slightly larger scale and if they can’t reopen then the downstream repercussions will be dire. We are a consumer economy. If no one consumes the economy dies.
Dems say start at the bottom and take care of everyone and maybe not worry so much about the people at the top who have been bailed out and had tax cuts and have banked some really enormous profits. (Except they didn’t bank their profits, what they did was stock buy backs – and now they want more bail-out money.) Dems say rescue everyone, even those who are the poorest people – no means testing. Just flood the bottom with money, both citizens and small business, because money may not trickle down, but a depressed economy can definitely rise from the bottom up.
Yes there are progressive Dems. We’re in the middle of an election. Republicans do not have a progressive bone in their bodies, even dispossessed Republicans who currently have no party. Giving people money means that a Democratic ideology gets a positive vote in Congress. And that goes against everything Republicans believe. They have almost achieved their small government goals. They were ready to cut the safety net the way a winning basketball team gets to cut down the net from the backboard. They have insisted that the coronavirus should be managed in the states, by the states and for the states. They are already having to back off on this policy because the needs are too great for the states to handle without federal help. And now they want Republicans to give away money to hoi polloi which, to them, is like throwing it into a waste basket. They just cannot understand that supporting the economy from the bottom up could help give it a jump start when we are done with social distancing.
There is little taste for rescuing rich folks once again. They have not exactly showered their good fortunes down on the rest of us and if there was a trickle it was so tiny as to be untraceable. The Republicans also want carte blanche over who they will rescue. They want the Treasury Department to be able to disperse the funds as they wish. This is something the Dems can’t swallow having already watched companies spend their windfalls on buying back their own stock and lavishing the dividends of their good fortune on stockholders rather than workers. They were able to ramp up production and hire back workers but this is not actually trickle down as salaries rose very little, although it certainly benefited all of us as good economies always do.
It comes down to the “spendthrift” habits of the Democrats who think a good economy must take care of everyone, not just CEO’s, those progressive socialists as the Republicans like to label them. If Democrats are such spendthrifts then why does the deficit go down when Democrats are in charge? Check it out. Historically that has been true.
Republicans feel that those on the bottom need to struggle more, that this will inspire them to rise, although it is easy to see that this policy is far more likely to cause despair and depression. Republicans have been implementing their ideology of small government, give power back to the states, but some states are so poor that we will have to rescue them from the novel coronavirus or we will all drown in grief. How is Republican small government working? It ended that Pandemic Program (that got folded into another program) and could not function at all when most needed. The Republican ideology is what we are experiencing right now and it is failing miserably. Yet Republicans refuse to pass a stimulus that addresses the needs of both the top and the bottom because it is against their deeply flawed ideology.
But the face of this pandemic, the people who own it on TV every day, are the Republicans. If Republican Senators do to American once again what you are planning to do, insist on only helping those who are wealthy I swear you will lose the 2020 election so badly that your party may not recover for decades. Most Americans know nothing about ideology and they will not care if your stimulus does not stand up to your conservative purity tests. If it works you will be heroes. As a Democrat, if it wouldn’t have such dire consequences for America, I would be happy to watch Republicans go down in flames. But as a human being I have to argue for what is right, which is neither progressive nor conservative, but somewhere in the middle. We so need to see the back of Mitch McConnell.
The president also has an ideology. It is money. It is the economy. It is the stock market. The president thinks that in 15 days America will be restored to normality, I guess by royal decree. Fate does seem to favor Trump and perhaps, once again, the universe will comply with his edicts. I would love this to be over in fifteen days. The only thing I would hate about it is that our resident egomaniac would claim it a personal victory. And he would get his heart’s desire (why is it his heart’s desire) to be reelected in 2020. To try to unravel a pandemic in the midst of an election in a divided America puts us all at risk because those who are supposed to represent us have their intellect clouded by their ideology, which prevents rational, reasoned, targeted action, and literally kills Americans and possibly the American economy.
Stock Market – Reacting or Leading – Up Good – Down Bad
Life has become a bit grim all of a sudden. I can’t leave my house because I loved to smoke cigarettes and now I am in a COVID-19 high risk group. High risk means this could be it. Curtains. Bye-bye. The wheel of chance may have chosen the nature of my demise. And, to add insult to injury, my pension is in the stock market which is falling; falling like a rock, and I see no good news on the horizon to lift it up.
The stock market seems to be ordering the President around. When the market likes what he says he will do, the market rises a bit. When the President doesn’t do what he says, or when he changes his plan, the market reacts. The market seemed to like that people would get checks. But I haven’t heard much about that lately. Stock buyers seemed to like the first iteration of the ever-changing stimulus plan. Today the market started up a bit but by the end of the day, with nothing accomplished, the numbers sagged once again.
We have heard that testing is great and that anyone who needs to can get tested. That is not what I see happening in my city. Every day we hear governors plead for masks, and protective gear for medical staff and doctors; ventilators are on the way supposedly, but we see that this is just hot air and you can’t make concrete objects from hot air. After an entire week which seems like a lifetime no one had received masks, face shields, gowns and these should be the simple things. Don’t you think people who own stock would perk up a bit if they knew that these items which keep doctors and staff from getting sick were being received. Mr. President, can you hear that, get hospitals the protective gear they need and the stock market might tick up. The President says that the Federal government isn’t a fulfillment center, but through emergency powers and FEMA, it is.
Talk about creating temporary hospital space with the help of the Army Corps of Engineers sounded smart. It sounds like states are getting some practical advice from the Corps of Engineers, but they are not actually building facilities, just helping officials find premises that might work, and so far not many spaces are up and running. Having the beds experts predict will be needed would also boost that stock market just a bit.
Congress cannot agree on a stimulus plan. Republicans want to bail out business big and small, and although businesses have already been bailed out and had giant tax cuts, the stock market seems to like this plan. Democrats want to bail out workers. I’m not sure how the markets are reacting to this, but since stock markets must answer to stock holders I’m pretty sure that if the Republicans get their way stocks will rise again. With a president who keeps saying that things have been “beautifully” completed when we can see that this is a huge exaggeration the kind of stability that keeps the stock market calm is absent. I used to believe that 45 would kill democracy, now I think he might end up killing me and many others. He did not cause the virus, but he is not the calm rational presence we need.
FEMA is now in the picture and is supposed to help the states focus on local needs. But the stock market ended down despite this new wrinkle. Have all Presidents pegged their policy decisions so closely to the gyrations of the stock market? Clearly in this case the stock market wants what the stock market wants. Meanwhile I am trying to act like I will survive. I will grow tomatoes. I will be able to walk around a store again soon. To hedge my bets, however, I am trying to decide what will happen to me if I lose my income and my house. Thank goodness I discovered Led Zeppelin singing Traveling in Kashmir. So great. When things get dreary I go to Kashmir.
If we could consider this virus unemotionally, just turn on our logic, we might think that Boris Johnson, PM of the UK, had a valid point in terms of just letting the virus run its natural course, that perhaps his first thought was best. If we had done enough tests, if we really knew the numbers – who gets seriously ill, who is most likely to die no matter what treatments we try, how many serious cases occur in each age group, how many people as a predictable percentage are in each group. It would be good to know if the seriousness of the virus falls out by age and by underlying health conditions, what those underlying conditions are, and when it is useless to keep trying to save someone.
If this disease is most serious for seniors, do seniors really want everyone to turn their lives, our society, and the global economy upside down on their behalf? Most of us have already signed DO NOT RESUSCITATE orders. Is putting someone on a ventilator part of the ‘do not resuscitate’ protocol? Are we trying to prolong our lives unnaturally, using expensive equipment that actually makes the end of life unnecessarily traumatic both for the dying and for the families? Making someone as comfortable as possible while they are dying is humane, but most people do not want to stay here if the quality of our life is essentially gone. Perhaps it’s time to think about a euthanasia order, similar to the ‘do not resuscitate’ order for people who are mentally able to choose.
Already young people feel that the older generation just will not step aside so that they can have their chance to lead. Already seniors are a financial burden on younger people. We are told that Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable. Perhaps this pandemic is a reminder that humans can’t live forever, and that some of us are living beyond our natural expiration date only because we are being kept alive by extraordinary measures. These measures don’t keep us youthful and allow us to contribute to the richness of life as we would like. They simply sustain us in a state of animation that our loved ones appreciate because we never want to let go of loved ones. But are seniors, so expensively sustained, happy with their lot.
My mom lived to be 100. She had good days, but many days she would say to me, “why am I still here.” I certainly didn’t want her to leave but modern medicine, which could keep her alive, was not doing very well at helping with some pretty ordinary things, like hearing, seeing, eating. When your ears fail (hearing aids cost a mint and often don’t work well, batteries have to be changed constantly), and your eyes fail, and your teeth don’t work and you just cannot face getting a new set, medicine is not performing any miracles to keep us living to an old age that has quality. Life is precious. It holds so much beauty that when you think you might lose it even things that seemed ugly are suddenly beautiful. It is the only consciousness we are aware of. We don’t know what comes next, if anything. Kudos to those who believe that in heaven there are many mansions, but even people of faith cling to this earthly awareness.
I’m reading Patti Smith’s book The Year of the Monkey which seems like just about the perfect book to read right now. It is written in a kind of wacky stream of consciousness style which is sometimes other-worldly, sometimes autobiographical, and sometimes brilliant. “Do not act as if you had ten thousand years to live..” she quotes from Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations and my mind says “trippy.” I cling to life as much as anyone. But I also feel that we are trying to hold back the tide. Obviously people with plenty of money will be able to fight harder, use more strategies, more medical equipment to prolong their lives. Either way this seems so unreal at times. Is this really happening? Which way is the right way to handle this? Will the steps we take to keep down the numbers of the dead kill even more people in the end from ‘culturas interruptus’, (a made-up word) but it certainly expresses the tack we are taking at the moment? What to do, what to do?
Show us the numbers please and then we can offer educated input.
Coronavirus or COVID-19 is teaching us some lessons that have nothing to do with health and, at the same time, everything to do with health, and survival, and how we may have to conduct our lives on Planet Earth. I believe we can say that the lines that separate nations on our maps are not barriers to some invaders, like diseases, viruses, toxins perhaps. Particles that move through the air have no boundaries. They know nothing of nations, barricades, or even walls. Even biosphere-style bubbles with filtered air might not do the trick.
So I think that what we see happening with COVID-19 incontrovertibly contradicts Trump’s America First view of the world. Clearly it is impossible to see the world as anything other than global. Everything is interconnected. Someone eats a rare animal in China and now we are all deep in the midst of a pandemic. This disease does not seem to affect the young and the healthy very seriously. It affects those who have health problems, weak immune systems, or all of the above especially in seniors who are most at risk. So this might just be a “cull the herd” virus, not the apocalyptic virus it could have been. Yet. But with 9 billion people on the planet by 2050, apocalypse does not seem far away and many have already intimated that a pandemic might be the cause.
We need to think about the earth the way eagles do, the way even ordinary birds do, not as separate nations but, for the sake of order and safety, as one unit – land, water and air – all one continuous geographical unit, therefore requiring global oversight of some kind. This does not have to signal the end of nations and separate governments. We just obviously need more global cooperation and less global competition. From here on out we all rise together or we all fall together. But we will not heed this warning. We will not take this opportunity to tackle global issues globally. Humans know how to cooperate, as we can see people doing right now in trying to lessen the effects of this virus. But we are also ambitious and we are set up to celebrate individual successes; we like power and autonomy, and we can work in teams but it requires an entire library of books to help us learn how to do it successfully. Even with survival at stake, unless disaster is barreling at us in the tangible form of a tiny bug or a giant asteroid, the threat is too abstract to inspire us to coalesce.
Another lesson that this virus is teaching us is that societies must be healthy in more than one way. Our 45, always focuses on the economy, on money, on keeping wealthy people happy so that they will fund American hegemony and keep people employed. Only employed people matter. If you have mental issues or physical issues which prevent you from finding employment some Americans seem to believe that you are just faking your disabilities; with proper training you could find some kind of job.
After I retired I worked for several years in a temp job with a blind woman. She had been born blind and had trouble perceiving spatial relationships. A job had to be specially designed and matched to her skills. Since the job was very visual, an auditory and braille approach had to be devised. When the company changed procedures, this woman lost her job because designing a whole new system she could participate in was too difficult. Not everyone can work. And of course there are people who would do anything to avoid a 9-5 job.
But Trump and the Republicans do not believe in giving away money, even if depriving our poorest citizens will doom those of us who work to infections and viruses. Democrats and Republicans designed a bipartisan bill to help some hourly employees, employees at small businesses and others who will not be able to survive with our businesses all closed down, but some Republicans are already requiring limitations on who can receive help and who won’t qualify. This means that we will not lift up those who need help the most because Mitch McConnell has determined that they do not deserve it. He cannot get it through his senile brain that we are all interconnected; that the fate of people who work rests on what happens to the poorest among us. This virus shows us why conservative economics is nonsense. This virus shows us that with so many people on the earth focusing only on one area of a society does not constitute adequate governance.
Trump worries about the stock market and tries to get the Fed of adjust something that can only be adjusted by tackling the real problem, the fallout from a pandemic, which is in no way contained to just the health care industry, but is affecting every aspect our society. This lesson is that not only is Social Darwinism mean, and not only will the poor be affected, but social benefits offer advantages to the wealthy as well as the poor. We are all interconnected.
We are also learning that small government is a bunch of hooey. How are we doing in a pandemic with reluctant federal leadership and each state calling the shots for what happens within its own boundaries? Part of this is due to a President who cannot accept that anything might be beyond his control, who tried to spin the facts he was hearing from his medical advisors, tried to spin the virus right out of existence. And why did he spin it? Apparently the virus only bothered him because it was tanking the stock market. He could not imagine that taking care of everyone’s health could be the only way to shore up the markets.
When Trump speaks to the nation lately it is as if he has been possessed by an alien, like the one in Independence Day who takes control over the Professor’s vocal chords. Governors are leading, but not all governors are created equal and not all states have equal access to resources. In this health crisis we are seeing why small government does not function well when populations are large. We rely on our federal government for stability and calm and intelligent solutions at all times, but especially in times of crisis. We are not even close to having that. So pass that financial package without any limitations and be prepared to write an even better one soon. America is taking a long break from consumerism. What will that teach us?
My best friend’s daughter is now a med student, but she could teach us all how to stay in touch with our emotions. When she’s happy, she is ‘over the moon’, sometimes all she shares on social media is one word ‘sads.’
Well that is my word for today, I have a case of the ‘sads.’ I was quietly, in my heart of hearts, rooting for Elizabeth Warren. She touched on the exact policies that would offer broad support to the American middle class. She was progressive enough without being ideological about it. My big sprawling family could have benefited from every one of the things she had a plan for. Even if they were past the need for child care, their children were almost grown and would soon find child care that didn’t cost half their salary highly beneficial. Those same children are even closer to finishing high school and going off to college. We are not a wealthy family. To see their children launched into good careers without massive college debts would be an enormous relief. Many family members are in the Medicare donut hole and have to shell out big bucks to cover the places their medical insurance refuses to go. Having really affordable health care would wipe some of those worry lines off their foreheads. Why should some seniors have to pay $300+ to have their Shingles shots while others pay nothing.
But I read the Washington Post every day. I read the New York Times every day. I could see that no woman was going to be good enough for the commentators and pundits in 2020. In fact, it became pretty clear that opinions were dead against any progressive winning the Democratic nomination. The Democratic Party is being steered by Republicans who have lost their party. They are in limbo. They cannot stomach a Republican Party led by Trump, but they are not now and never will be Democrats. They have been very active. They write opinion columns; they write books. I am speaking of people like David Frum, George Will, David Brooks and other well-known conservatives who are rogue pool balls now loose on the table and still trying desperately to bring back their brand of intellectual conservatism and Christian morality. There are people like Jennifer Rubin and Nicole Wallace who have become supposedly more passionate Democrats than the actual Democrats. And then there are the moderate Democrats like David Leonhardt who heads the opinion staff at the NYT. All of these people have argued over and over again, in articles and interviews that no progressive can beat Donald Trump; that no woman can beat Trump. It’s hard to tell if the people arrived at this same view independent of the press, or because it is repeated so often, and not always by men.
Elizabeth Warren, to me, seemed as perfect a presidential candidate as it is possible for a human being to be. Not too old, not too ideological, capable of flexibility, with a warmth that has been very much missed in our recent governance, and with a mission to make sure that millionaires and billionaires would benefit from parting with tiny percentages of their wealth (which they will not even miss) to help America become a nation that is once again thriving and growing, where citizens feel valued and happy because there is hope that their children will also have good lives lived in good health. This would be an America where people could look forward to a comfortable retirement ahead, would know that there will be a rest from their labors.
Why don’t we want that? Why would we pick any of the old men in this race who seem far gloomier, or far more confused, than the chipper and energetic Warren. But we have been schooled that this is what we must do because one goal is more important than all the others. We must not elect Donald Trump for four more years. We all agree that this is our most significant goal in 2020 and that sacrifices of personal preference must be made to make it so. We have thrown in our lot with the moderate Democrats and the party-less anti-Trumpers because we believe that they are most likely correct. As a woman it almost feels that we are knuckling under once again to the males who dominate our politics, but even so we are pitching in with the majority for a necessary cause and that is what women do.
So here I am saying goodbye once again to the idea of having a woman as the American President and admitting once again that I have backed the wrong horse in this race, although I always knew it would turn out this way. I soothe myself by listing the number of strong women who were in this race. Women will keep running, I feel sure. It is especially poignant to bid farewell to the last viable female candidate in Women’s History month, with all the sweet news coverage of the ‘pinkie swears’ Elizabeth made with young girls all over America. The stories speak of how she is disappointed that she cannot keep those promises right now. Did she create a little subset of girls who will grow up with big ambitions. That would be a nice legacy. And so Elizabeth, Amy, Kamala, Tulsi (not out but not winning), and Marianne farewell for now. We are good at waiting for those ‘historical’ women’s moments to arrive.
Sarah Longwell writing in the NYT on March 9 th offered some backup for the idea that ‘never Trump’ Republicans will vote for a moderate like Joe Biden but will not vote for a Democratic Socialist.
We have multiple election campaigns stumping in state after state across America, but an extremely contagious virus is also racing to state after state across America. It’s a good thing that Super Tuesday is almost here because this is looking like a really bad collision. We have an event that calls for social interaction at rallies and town halls and polling places; and germs that spread by air from person to person and call for social isolation. What could go wrong?
Will the COVID-19 virus force us to change the way we do elections? Will the candidates have to keep their distance from the very people they would like to shake hands with, take selfies with? These are important people for the moment. Money has flowed and will flow to fund their campaigns. Can they protect themselves from germs and still campaign in the same ways they have been? Several of the candidates are not young. Is their health good enough to withstand a bout of COVID-19? Although this is a rather morbid discussion, perhaps we need to have it. If it’s important to have a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in Congress, especially the Senate, then the campaigns ought to give some thought to how they will keep their people healthy.
Florida has the virus; Florida votes March 17. Illinois has the virus; Illinois votes March 17. Oregon has not yet reported the virus; Oregon votes March 19. Washington has the virus; Washington State votes March 20. Wisconsin, an important swing state where campaigning is fierce, has not yet reported a case of the virus; their primary is on April 7. Pennsylvania, also a swing state, and NY both have their primaries on April 28 th. NY has the virus, Pennsylvania does not have any cases yet. I suppose we can be happy that the primary season is almost over. But then the conventions are held and the actual election begins. Will COVID-19 taper off when the weather gets warm as says our large and in-charge president who hates science? We’ll see.
Perhaps my worries are baseless. Perhaps this will end up being a nothing-burger. Right now if feels like we are waiting for the aliens in Independence Day to nuke our cities and towns. Some common sense measures might help here. “A word to the wise should be sufficient.”